May 2, 2012

As presented by Jennifer Rubin, this story has layers of conjecture, inference, denial, and updating. You can't quite see what happened, but if the headline accurately describes the situation, it's pathetic.

Damnation! This makes it very hard to vote conservative. Since I refuse to vote for Obama, will I and many other independents stay home in November? Will Ron Paul thus gather more votes in a third party spoiler? I hate this crap.

I wish the self-styled "social conservatives" would leave the GOP and form their own little party. They care little about the economy and even less about civil liberties, just so long as they can keep men from sleeping with each other.

Damnation! This makes it very hard to vote conservative. Since I refuse to vote for Obama, will I and many other independents stay home in November?

I am a conservative and I'm already out (not voting) this year - a first for me. No one can force me to side with either of these chumps/con men and I won't. I know the game and I refuse to play it.

As Americans, we should be marching on Washington and announcing our refusal to go along with this charade any longer, but - like those who bought "The Secret" from Oprah and Ellen - too many can't even see it IS a charade, so that's not going to happen.

Grenell clearly agreed to be part of Romney's campaign and then left to create a public show of making peace with the Gay Lobby that happens declares that it is at war with Social Conservatives.

That this move helps Obama's PR would be reason enough. Obama wins by dividing his enemies.

Ergo: this thrusts the Romney Campaign into publicly dividing itself from the Social Conservatives or appearing to be at war with the Gay's Marriages, like they already appear to be at war Women. Take your pick, Mitt.

I wish the self-styled "social conservatives" would leave the GOP and form their own little party. They care little about the economy and even less about civil liberties, just so long as they can keep men from sleeping with each other.

As important as it is right now, this obsession some have with seeing politics - and especially the presidency - as a single-issue proposition (the economy) is going to drive us to ruin as easily as anything else. That makes those that do so part of the problem, thus, no better than they're/you're criticizing.

Disgraceful, if true. But I doubt it's true as written. Given the way the media treats gay conservatives I think it's more likely that he realized that his foreign policy statements, whatever they might be, would be buried beneath the usual "Gay! And Yet Republican!" concern-troll narrative.

And, yes, social conservatives really do need stop obsessing about gay marriage. But the only social cons who are mentioned by Rubin are commentators who have no direct ties to the Romney campaign. Which, BTW, has exactly the same policy on same-sex-marriage as the Obama administration.

"I am a conservative and I'm already out (not voting) this year - a first for me."

So you're effectively casting a vote for the incumbent in order to avoid an unpalatable choice. Why would you do that? Isn't that simply succumbing to the same modern disengagement from hard truths that you've so ardently opposed?

Grennell deleted over 800 tweets against conservative women and also bashed Hillary and Albright?Hadn’t heard of the guy before today but according to the links in Rubin’s piece, it appears that in addition to having to delete some tweets, he’s more known for crusading for SSM than he is for his foreign policy expertise. When it’s know that your real passion is for something other than the job he was hired for – how effective could he really be on foreign policy if every MSM reporter is going to try to change the subject to the issue to SSM?

We saw similar issues during the Bush administration with openly pro-choice members of his administration who would get asked about abortion instead of national security issues or whatever it was that they were hired to advise the president on. I’m not saying and clearly Romney doesn’t insist that his staff agree with him on every issue but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for even those conservatives who don’t care a fig about SSM to recognize that by being a forceful advocate on a controversial issue that he publicly disagrees with his boss on and given that the MSM loves to tout stories of in-fighting within the GOP that Grennell’s effectiveness as a foreign policy spokesperson is likely compromised.

Milking anti-gay bigotry might be of benefit for one last election cycle at the long term cost of cementing the idea that the Republican party is the party of hatred of gay people.

And yet, such haters as Dick Cheney and Dubya have much more congenial views on gay issues than your Little Black Jesus.

But keep telling yourself that the Democrats are your friend. I suspect if you realized that they see you as nothing more than an exotic, pampered pet to be trotted out every election cycle in the interest of some mythical "inclusion," it would pop that silly hat right off your head.

The economy is in the toilet, 20+ million are out of work, millions more stopped looking for work and we are at the edge of a financial doomsday yet this and other seconday and tertiary issues are going to keep a number of people home or worse still vote for the biggest fool w ho has every been president. God help us.

Wrong - gays are attempting to subvert our nation with it. Sorry - raised in L.A. and lived in San Francisco for 20 years. I know the game and it should be challenged head-on.

AllieOop,

The Relgious Right has more influence in the Republican Party and Social Conservatism than previously thought or hoped for by Fiscal Conservatives, surprise! A surprise only to conservatives,…

Wrong (Yeah, like I - an atheist conservative - don't know the make-up of my party and need a lib to explain it to me. Man, how you guys flatter yourselves,…)

leslyn,

Grenell left the campaign after a radio host for the American Family Association said that the hiring indicated the Romney campaign’s willingness to tell the so-called pro-family community to “drop dead.” Bryan Fischer of AFA is now calling it a "huge win."

My point is, all of you are playing the game - allowing these made-up issues to sway you away from considering reality - which doesn't change no matter what else happens or anyone says. Consider:

I know Romney and Obama. I won't vote for either of them. Why? They're both liars, out to deceive us, and neither is a leader. It's simple.

I was going to (enthusiastically) vote for Santorum. Why? Despite my theological differences with him, he was a straight-shooter - which was the same reason the rest of you rejected him.

What I'm saying is, the problem is YOU. YOU are refusing to deal in reality. YOU are dragging us under by doing so. YOU are rejecting any semblance of truth. YOU are the ones who refuse to do the right thing and insist instead on being cynical, and short-sighted, and easily manipulated away from the real issues. You even seem to enjoy it.

"The Relgious Right has more influence in the Republican Party and Social Conservatism than previously thought or hoped for by Fiscal Conservatives, surprise!"

I didn't realize the Obama administration was so thoroughly in the clutches of the Religious Right. And yet the current administration has also refused to support same-sex-marriage, even in solidly liberal voting blocs like Maryland and DC. Odd, that.

The Relgious Right has more influence in the Republican Party and Social Conservatism than previously thought or hoped for by Fiscal Conservatives, surprise!

I think this is probably right. And it's a shame.

If conservatives would just concede certain issues -- the gay marriage issue in particular -- they would have a better shot this fall. If liberals wallop them again this fall (which is not an impossibility) they may have to. Only time will tell, but I think people need to consider the possibility that Obama may do even better against Romney than he did against McCain. It wouldn't shock me at all if Obama added Arizona, or even states like South Carolina or Georgia, to his belt this fall.

I think a lot of independents, myself included, agree with Republicans on a whole host of issues, in particular issues relating to the economy and national defense. But so many independents, and in partuicular younger independents, find Republicans' positions on "social" issues so stupifyingly wrong-headed that it impedes our willingness to vote for them.

Republicans need to wake up and realize that the "Big Tent" is not so big anymore. A refocus of the party's platform might change that. Otherwise I think it'll just continue to shrink.

Today Byron York gave an entirely different take, which is that Romney's people pled for Grenell to stay.

I heard the same thing, but I also read that the Romney campaign never put out a statement in support of him or responded to the attacks against him. I also read that he was never brought out to make a statement or do anything in his role as a spokesperson, even though it's been non-stop Osama bin Ladin stuff recently.

Crack in November there is going to be an election. Granted the candidates suck but there is a clear difference between the two. Fantasy candidate isn't on the ballot. The reality check time is here. Less bad trumps horrible. Those are the choices, the other minor candidates or not voting are just vanity, posturing and mental masturbation.

The news article I read describes Grenell as an openly gay GOP operative. I have to assume that such a person has been around the so called political block to get pulled into a GOP presidential campaign as a foreign policy spokesperson.

Indeed he was appointed as UN spokesperson by that radical right wing George W Bush and one of his strongest supporters is the other radical right wing war mongering John Bolton.

So now I'm supposed to believe that this now delicate flower resigned because of complaints by some unnamed social conservatives because he's gay?

Really? How did he last so long among the evil GOP? Something doesn't fit here.

So you're effectively casting a vote for the incumbent in order to avoid an unpalatable choice. Why would you do that? Isn't that simply succumbing to the same modern disengagement from hard truths that you've so ardently opposed?

No, I understand that's the framing being put around it, but it leaves out the reality that "We The People" run this shit - we don't have to be Pavlov's dogs here. We could stop all this crap today, but as I just wrote in my last post, YOU won't. YOU are going to go along with it - no matter how shitty the choices are, the situation grows, or weird the candidates become.

The American people used to ransack the White House if politicians pulled some bullshit. Now they sign online petitions, like that does any good. It is YOU who have abdicated your role as citizens, not me. I - we - don't have to do this.

I didn't bring us Obama, Ann did - happily - and I won't bring us Romney. We can stop this and demand better in every way, but, for some reason, the rest of y'all don't get that.

I think a lot of independents, myself included, agree with Republicans on a whole host of issues, in particular issues relating to the economy and national defense. But so many independents, and in partuicular younger independents, find Republicans' positions on "social" issues so stupifyingly wrong-headed that it impedes our willingness to vote for them.

With all due respect, "independents" are the same folks who put Obama in office in 2008, and then did a 180 and supported Tea Party candidates in 2010. They come in all stripes and can't be pursued as a voting block, and frankly the lack of seriousness among some of them should not be rewarded by pursuit.

On gay marriage, I don't think social liberals have a clue about the non-relgious arguments for protecting the institution.

"I wish the self-styled "social conservatives" would leave the GOP and form their own little party."

Social conservatives are 40% or more of the GOP voting stength.

Look at the GOP before Roe v. Wade when SoCons were not politically active and gave their votes to both parties. The GOP was a party only able to compete for the president now and again, a hopeless minority in Congress.

"So now I'm supposed to believe that this now delicate flower resigned because of complaints by some unnamed social conservatives because he's gay?

"Really? How did he last so long among the evil GOP? Something doesn't fit here."

He took a bullet for the campaign, which he said himself: "My ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign."

Crack in November there is going to be an election. Granted the candidates suck but there is a clear difference between the two. Fantasy candidate isn't on the ballot. The reality check time is here. Less bad trumps horrible. Those are the choices, the other minor candidates or not voting are just vanity, posturing and mental masturbation.

Bullshit. I am a free American man who you can't make vote for anyone or anything I despise. If your disgust level was as high as mine, you, too, would be dropping out and demanding better as well - but you won't, because you're cowed into thinking as they want you to:

"Those are the choices" and if I don't go along I'm an elitist egotist - not John Galt, or a true patriot/revolutionary because that's only reserved for someone, anyone, else.

So, is Romney staying in? He's Mormon I hear, and that's an issue that has been used against him by Evangelicals.

Let's hope the vapors aren't contagious at the Romney campaign, lest they all find themselves being targeted by their opponents on all sorts of issues unrelated to the issues facing this country. I know the Obama campaign would never stoop to that, but others certainly will.

Update to the article states that senior Romney campaign officials and respected Republicans not associated with the campaign tried to dissuade Grenell from leaving. I see no evidence that Romney canned him. Romney hired him to comment on foreign policy and wanted him around for that purpose. (What a shock, a gay guy hired for a substantive purpose and not to give the "gay perspective" or to fill a quota.) If he bowed to pressure from non-campaign based social cons then maybe he's too thin-skinned for politics. But this seems unlikely given his social messaging which is quite harsh; seems unlikely he was dishing it out without expecting to have it dished back. So let us not forget option #2: the grotesquely homophobic behavior of many on the left toward gay conservatives (as well as those who "look" or "act" gay according to them). It would not be the first time that silence was extorted.

Laying this off on "Republican H8-ers" is the response of a child. A very small, very stupid, very spoiled child.

On gay marriage, I don't think social liberals have a clue about the non-relgious arguments for protecting the institution.

No, we do have a clue, we just understand that those arguments are all bullshit. You're just wrong on this issue. Full stop. Get over it.

Which you hold social issues like abortion and gay marriage as more important than the solvency of the country.

Great.

The same criticism could be levied at you. If Republicans are so worried about the economy, then give up the bullshit! It's not that I think gay marriage and abortion are more importent than the solvency of the country. They aren't.

It's that I perceive the Republican position on gay marriage as a personal attack on me motivated by nothing other than personal prejudice. I think most (but of course not all) gay people feel that way.

Another example: these idiotic constitutional amendments making English the official language in various states. How do you think that comes across to latino and hispanic communities. Same for the position on immigration of the hard liner, kick-em-all-out Republicans.

The Republican party used to be attractive because of its pragmatism. But that seems to have disappeared. Reagan helped move the Democratic party to the right, and it was a good thing. I think we're seeing the same thing now with the Republican party, except that certain elements of the party are holding on fiercely to issues they should (and will eventually have to) let go of.

Campaigns are notorious for personality conflicts because they are time-critical pressure cookers with often amorphous hierarchies. The candidate is the big dog, but he can't be everywhere at the same time.

When something like this resignation happens that appears to not make any sense (do you really think Romney listens closely to the opinions of people who think he believes in a "cult"?), look to personalities not ideology for an explanation.

My guess is that Grenell thought he'd have a freer hand and more say than he got offered. I'd bet that his I'm-outta-here words were something like "No way in hell am I reporting to that asshole XXXXXX".

"... He took a bullet for the campaign, which he said himself: "My ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign.".."

Nah, still don't buy it. If social conservatives hated gays as much as we are led to believe he would have been hounded out of GOP politics ten years ago. Instead he was apponted UN spokesperson by Bush and got on Romneys campaign.

Something just occurred to me – in Grenell’s resignation he doesn’t make any reference to being criticized for being gay by social conservatives only a nebulous reference to the “hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues” which to me suggests that he was concerned that his orientation and/or opinions on SSM would used against Romney by the other side. Given also that the tweets he deleted seem to have been directed at people on the other side of the aisle such as Secretary of State Clinton, I think it’s likely he didn’t want to set himself up a lightning rod going into the general election.

The Republican party used to be attractive because of its pragmatism. But that seems to have disappeared.

I'm sorry, but that's revisionist history. There has been no major change in the Republican party's base since Johnson pushed desegregation on the South and Nixon started the Southern strategy to gather up the disaffected Dixiecrats.

The Republicans-gone-loco is just a NYT meme that gets played over and over until folks atarted to believe it.

You're a Democrat, just maybe of the blueish dog variety, and should probably vote that way.

The point is that this is an issue where the discourse should either end or be abated significantly. Republicans are going to have to get there eventually anyway. The best thing for them, really, would be for the Supreme Court to finally rule on the issue and find that the constitution does not permit states to exclude gay people from getting married. (Which is what will happen.) Then Republicans can just put the issue behind them.

Younger independents, find Republicans' positions on "social" issues so stupifyingly wrong-headed that it impedes our willingness to vote for them.

Rejecting the wisdom of your elders, without understanding how they come to their conclusions, is the problem there. A total lack of respect based on idiot narcissism. What makes the youth so special they know better?

The hippie cry was "don't trust anyone over 30" but "don't trust anyone under 30" would be a better one, for today because, those of us who had to live with the results of the hippies can tell you - like a tattoo on your forehead - we've seen that you should never carelessly make decisions in your youth that you'll have to live with as an adult. Social issues matter.

Why should I stand up for, say, gay marriage when I know - not "believe" but KNOW - it's a subversive plot against the country?

Why should I stand up for anything the Left suggests when I know - not "believe" but KNOW - they are as confused as the day is long?

But the youth won't join me in rejecting this crap because they know better. Sure.

I never was a good leadoff hitter but pretty good 4-6 in the lineup. Of course, I had righteous coaches who didn't play games w/ the lineup. Except for one coach who always had his kid bat 3rd and he sucked. Just Sayn'

There has been no major change in the Republican party's base since Johnson pushed desegregation on the South and Nixon started the Southern strategy to gather up the disaffected Dixiecrats.

The Republicans-gone-loco is just a NYT meme that gets played over and over until folks atarted to believe it.

You're a Democrat, just maybe of the blueish dog variety, and should probably vote that way.

Maybe you're right. It sure does feel that way though. I think it is true that there used to be more moderates in Congress on both sides. I also think it's true that Democrats have moved to the right in recent decades, and Republicans have moved even farther right. Maybe it's these things that contribute to my feeling.

I do mostly vote Democrat, and am of the "blue dog" variety. Unlike Crack, I will vote, but do feel similarly disaffected.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are people out there who are disaffected by the Democratic party's fiscal irresponsibility. (Which George Bush, who was not a fiscal conservative, started, and Obama has continued.) If Republicans would change their positions on a few things they could gather us up. The real questions is whether they'd lose their base by doing so. I'm not so sure they would.

As an aside, if the base is comprised of people similar to those who were disaffected by Johnson's decision to push desegretion on the South, that's not something to be proud of.

"... The same criticism could be levied at you. If Republicans are so worried about the economy, then give up the bullshit! It's not that I think gay marriage and abortion are more importent than the solvency of the country. They aren't..."

Personally I don't give a shit if gays get married or women want to abort their unborn children. My life remains unchanged either way.

But a $16 trillion and rising does affect me and it affects gays and knocked up women too. So if independents want to sit home or vote for the pro abortion and pro gay marriage candidate by all means go for it.

As an aside, if the base is comprised of people similar to those who were disaffected by Johnson's decision to push desegretion on the South, that's not something to be proud of.

I agree, mostly. Reading reports from the time shows a level of racism that just strikes us as imbecilic now.

However, the northern ethnics who pushed desegregation on the South thought that blacks were just another ethnic group, and after Jim Crow was abolished they would work their way up like Jews, Irish, and Italians. Certain southerners (e.g. Faulkner) said it wasn't going to work that way.

He was right. And the lives of the black underclass have been made a living hell by those folks who thought they were only trying to help.

You've put gratuitously ingracious words at me in the past. I concur with your words quoted above, and with the principle, though not the personals, of their prefatory stem-winding. Yet, your personals directed at me in the past, and at others in that stem-winding, compel me to wonder whether your enterprise, including your words quoted above, and their preface, is false flag.

So all those years I spent amongst gays, discussing the evil of "breeders" and how gays wanted to destroy the institution of marriage, was all my imagination?

Where was this and what gays were you around? And what exactly did they say? There may well be gay people who think that way, but not the ones I know. Not the ones in their thirties, like me.

Even assuming that belief system was ever predominate in the gay community, and I don't think it was, a lot of it was probably motivated by the discrimination faced by openly gay people at the time, which has dissipated over time.

The everyday concerns of a middle-class married couple are the same whether they're gay or straight, and those concerns strongly align with fiscal conservatism.

Sorry, but I've known too many gay couples to buy that line. "The everyday concerns of a middle-class married couple are the same whether they're gay or straight," ONLY if that straight couple are swingers. Y'all can't fool me.

For the record:

I don't oppose some accommodation be made for gay couple-hood, but A) it can't be called "marriage" because that title is taken, and B) whatever we do has to be the result of a real discussion of the issues and not some bullshit we're-all-the-same, Will & Grace, etc. daydream.

PS I don't mean to turn this off topic into a thread about Mormonism! (If you want to argue about Mormonism we can have that discussion elsewhere, Crack. Then again, we have had it elsewhere, mutiple times in comments here, and we both know very well where we both stand.)

"I perceive the Republican position on gay marriage as a personal attack on me motivated by nothing other than personal prejudice. I think most (but of course not all) gay people feel that way."You would. It's all personal. It's all about you.(Hint: it's not. No, really, it's not.)(Additional Hint/Fun Fact: Obama does not support gay marriage.)

And please stop pretending that contempt for heterosexuals ("breeders" etc.) does not exist in the gay community. That's a big lie and you know it and it does NOT stem from a "legacy of discrimination" boohoo. It stems from a human urge to get over on and feel superior to other people.

I find the Grennell resignation disappointing. My impression is that this was Grenell's choice, and that the Romney campaign team tried to dissuade him from doing so.

It's not 100% clear to me that he did so because of criticism from some social conservatives-- for one thing, there were actually few vocal critics of the Grenell hire-- I only heard of two-- and there was plenty of pushback on that, even from other social conservatives.

Perhaps Grenell saw things possibly coming down the line-- things the Obama campaign/ Obama surrogates/ the MSM would use against him and/or Romney-- that he wanted to obviate?

It's all unclear. I wish he'd stayed, I thought he was a good hire. But if he resigned because of some weak criticism, from social conservatives or the left? Then I guess it's just as well, since the campaign body blows have barely begun and there's much much worse coming down the pike.

I think this statement (gay marriage is a subversive plot against the country) really betrays your own personal prejudices.

What "personal prejudices"? I never said I hated, or even disliked, gays. Just that I know what the plot is. I understand the race game, too. And feminism. Does that mean I have a "personal prejudice" against blacks and women?

Where was this and what gays were you around?

I told you: L.A. and San Francisco. And there aren't too many types of gays I haven't been around.

And what exactly did they say?

I told you that also - subversion.

There may well be gay people who think that way, but not the ones I know. Not the ones in their thirties, like me.

Even assuming that belief system was ever predominate in the gay community, and I don't think it was, a lot of it was probably motivated by the discrimination faced by openly gay people at the time, which has dissipated over time.

Who cares? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc., are motivated by the same thing - does that make them right?

Good, because if it's bigotry to say the United States shouldn't be led by anyone who insists we come from the planet Kolab, then I think we have to redefine the word.

Let's grant that it's perfectly valid for you to criticize Mormonism.

O.K., let's grant me that.

But let's be clear about why you're not voting for Romney.

I've tried but few listen. It goes deeper than just what's on the surface - which is another BIG problem I have with our politics: it's all surface - for instance:

Romney is a cultist. His cultism causes him to hide and lie to us about what he thinks/believes. That means we can't know who we're electing until he's in office - which is Nancy Pelosi saying, "You've got to pass it to see what's in it" all over again.

There's more, but do you see what I'm saying?

It's more than merely saying Mormonism is a cult. Cultism has a LOT of implications for the us that few want to deal with - that's why they're so desperately trying to keep it off the radar.

I made it clear, even before my enthusiasm for Gingrich dissipated, that it hinged on his multiple "marriages"/divorces not being an unwieldy issue.

Then Marianne showed up on television and I couldn't justify staying.

I'm no prude, or ideologue, but want what's best for the country. What's best for the country is someone who won't lie to us. If Newt could've explained himself - and not demanded we "overlook" his indiscretions - I may have stayed with him, but he can't and that puts us - the people - in the line of fire as well. He's a scumbag, and that's all there is to it. Pity.

Another example: these idiotic constitutional amendments making English the official language in various states. How do you think that comes across to latino and hispanic communities.

Yeah. Because you know those people are so emotional. They're not able to think beyond their ethnic loyalties. Topics like national sovereignty and assimilation are beyond their grasp.Better to pander.

I hit the Rightosphere pretty hard every day, from The Anchoress and Fausta to Riehl and RedState, even Stacy McCain, once in a while.

The was NO mention of Grenell anywhere, except a piece by Roger Simon on PJMedia, so this business of the social Conservatives dictating this is pretty thin gruel. HotAir noted that Grenell had an acerbic way of expressing himself, and I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

But, yes, I can see where he might resign, rather than become a lightning rod for all the Lefty hatred that would come his way (he would be the homosexual counterpart of Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin).

AllieOop said...

The Relgious Right has more influence in the Republican Party and Social Conservatism than previously thought or hoped for by Fiscal Conservatives, surprise!

Crack "believes" he knows everything about gays from the uber Leftist gays he met in San Fran. It's almost laughable that he believes he is being super rational and yet he refuses to acknowledge any other point of view from more conservative gays, even when they are articulated here in full view. That sort of stubbornness isn't really rational.

I don't know what motivated Grennell to quit besides being kept from doing his actual job and not liking the firestorm he was creating by being there. Romney's base was screaming outrage and the attention was dusting up the intense hatred towards Republicans held by many gays; here's a particularly colorful illustrative comment from a gay Dem. at Advocate: "Oh and you Log Cabin Ass Bags need to go PHUCK your fascist ass kissing selves!" Ugly.

Grennell's job was to advise on foreign policy and instead he ended up being the center of a nasty conflict. Still, I think he should have stayed if Romney had wanted him to.

What's most pathetic is that the Obama campaign will focus on the theme of "Forward" while casting the Republicans as the party which wants to go "Backwards."

I don't know what motivated Grennell to quit besides being kept from doing his actual job and not liking the firestorm he was creating by being there. Romney's base was screaming outrage

As they once said in the Bersaglieri, "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?????".

The Romster's base is not social Conservatives, and he having something of a time winning over Conservatives in general. The social Conservatives are the ones who are still ABR, and still hoping Santorum can turn it into a brokered convention.

Well he is certainly correct that religious and social conservatives have more influence in the Republican Party than fiscal conservatives do.

Have to disagree.

Social Conservatives fell out of favor after Reagan.

Granted, the Tea Partiers are facing a fight from the RINO Establishment, but the RINOs don't make much noise about same sex marriage and such because they wouldn't get invited to all the parties their friends across the aisle in the Democrat Party throw.

Social conservatives fell out of favor after Reagan? How so? Both Bushes were social conservatives, as were Dole, McCain, and now Romney. Every Congressional leader has been a social conservative. The only significant Republicans who aren't social conservatives are a handful of mayors and governors from blue states, like Giuliani and Christie.

Even the handful of significant economic conservatives, like Ryan and the Pauls, are social conservatives as well.

No. Yes, it would help the argument that this was due to Republican homophobia. But, still, no. (1) The Republican base is diverse on social issues. You cannot credibly claim a lockstep approach on gay marriage or the social issue of your choice anymore. (2) I've seen barely any mention of this guy until just very recently much less screaming and outrage.

i see grenell's resignation as akin to palin's: a way to take the heat off. grenell's hire was being loudly denounced by 'social conservative' leaders who were making, as grenell stated, his personal life their focus. rather than taking away from romney's campaign issues by becoming a diversionary target, he resigned.it's ridiculous to speculate, as some have, that grenell's personal hopes for marriage equality or pressure from leftist groups were factors in his decision. the man has too long of a distinguished history of working in the republican party (for both bush and bolton no less) to suddenly have decided to chuck it all in order to win the favor of his gay brethern who are democrats.the bad news for republicans in this is that it plays into the perception that the party is still in the grips of the 'religious right'. this could sway some of those important idependent voters away from their willingness to vote for GOP candidates who are, otherwise, seen as champions of individual liberty, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility. the social-cons who are celebrating their 'win' here for driving a gay guy from the party don't realize that they may have just shot themselves in the foot if they really do hope to put the republican candidate in the whitehouse...but then, maybe all they really do care about is harrassing gay citizens.

In the sense that they personally hold a wide range of views, sure. In the sense of "will vote based on those views", though, no. On social issues, the Republican base spans the range from "I will vote against you if you aren't a social conservative" to "your position on social issues has little or no impact on my vote".

Wanna take a crack at demonstrating your understanding? Only because this seems like an important issue to you.

Why don't you make your own arguments if you want a response? I assume you will say things about procreation and tradition. Or about parenting. Or about how allowing gay marriage will lubricate a slippery slope towards incest and bestiality. Pun intended.

Most of these secular arguments, perhaps with the exeption of the procreation argument, really boil down to a value judgment that homosexuality is immoral. I'll grant that some areligious people probably believe that to be true, but for the most part that belief is motivated by religion.

As for procreation, what do you think, that gay people are going to enter into heterosexual relationships and procreate because the government won't let them get "gay married"? That there's no such thing as surrogacy? That there aren't any children in this country or elsewhere that need to be adopted?

Yeah. Because you know those people are so emotional. They're not able to think beyond their ethnic loyalties. Topics like national sovereignty and assimilation are beyond their grasp.

Better to pander.

No, they just understand that constitutional amendments making English an official languge have nothing to do with national sovereignty or assimilation. Those are post hoc pretextual justifications at best.

Crack "believes" he knows everything about gays from the uber Leftist gays he met in San Fran.

Everyone here, who knows me, also understands I don't go in for beliefs, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's almost laughable that he believes he is being super rational and yet he refuses to acknowledge any other point of view from more conservative gays, even when they are articulated here in full view. That sort of stubbornness isn't really rational.

Because there are no conservative gays in San Fran or L.A., right? THAT idea is what's laughable and irrational.

What you don't like is I don't buy your position, but resorting to assumptions and enduring your projections doesn't make the gay argument any more palatable. I thought I made myself clear:

Don't call it "marriage" (a word that defines a union between a man and a woman) and base whatever resolution we come to on the facts of gay life, not the media-friendly, manipulative image gays have been using in an attempt to get their way, which I resent almost as much as the goal. In other words, don't treat me like I'm stupid and you can pull one over on me. Gay "marriage" isn't like straight marriage. I'm not saying, in every case, it's not, but in most. Gays make rules for fooling around, extra partners, and all sorts of other arrangements that most straights reject for monogamy - deny that and you're an out-and-out liar. I choose to deal in the real world, not only because it's the right thing to do but because reality, sooner or later, makes itself known anyway. I'd just rather get off on the right foot whenever we undertake anything.

You - and even most gays - just selfishly want your way, and to "win" over straight society, which reveals a contempt for those around you that I don't share (for gays or anyone else) at all. Here, in a nutshell:

We simply don't have to be dishonest, subversive, or manipulative, to find a happy medium for everyone - and using those tactics only makes getting to where we all want to be that much harder.

And, last but not least, I think treating someone who takes that position as the enemy - or trying to pretend they're delusional - is about as wrongheaded as what gays "believed" during the AIDS crisis, which resulted in many more unnecessary deaths than anyone ever imagined, and still does.

But that disaster, too, was at their own hands and from their own culture's thinking.

If there's one thing I see that gays and blacks have in common today, it's the capacity to be their own worst enemy from trying to be clever, instead of smart and honest.

Social conservatives fell out of favor after Reagan? How so? Both Bushes were social conservatives, as were Dole, McCain, and now Romney. Every Congressional leader has been a social conservative.Every Congressional leader has been a social conservative. The only significant Republicans who aren't social conservatives are a handful of mayors and governors from blue states, like Giuliani and Christie.

Even the handful of significant economic conservatives, like Ryan and the Pauls, are social conservatives as well.

Have to disagree.

Strongly.

Bush 41 certainly wasn't (that was why he was made Reagan's running mate), nor McCain (immigration), and a case can be made Dubya (No Child Left Behind, Big Government Conservatism), though an evangelical Christian, was hardly a pal of someone like Gary Bauer.

Mitch McConnell - the biggest knock against him is his RINOism. Some of Boehner's stands, such as illegal immigration, have more of a business than social component.

Ron Paul is a social Conservative? On abortion, maybe, but most other positions he is the prototypical Libertarian.

Some of the RINOs may lip service to some social issues, but often they'll vote with their pals across the aisle.

Bush 41 certainly wasn't (that was why he was made Reagan's running mate), nor McCain (immigration), and a case can be made Dubya (No Child Left Behind, Big Government Conservatism), though an evangelical Christian, was hardly a pal of someone like Gary Bauer

If we apply the same standard to economic conservatives that you do to social conservatives, there have been no economic conservatives in positions of power in the Republican Party since the 1920s.

PLEASE don't just stay home on election day. If you lean right, then vote Libertarian or America First. If you lean left, then vote Green or Socialist. If you're more in the middle, vote...I dunno...look into a couple parties and see which one is mostly in agreement with you. But by all means, vote.

If enough people start doing this, then one/both of the TwoMajorParties will look at what is driving people away from 'em and thus adopt those issues in order to get people back into the fold. This is how woman finally got the right to vote in this country, as well as how Prohibition was both passed and repealed. Also, your vote will help make it easier for some of those parties to get ballot access for the next election.

But if you don't vote at all, then they simply don't care what your opinion is...and nothing at all will ever change.

Crack, don't criticize people for making assumptions and then proceed to make your own. You've clearly had some really bad experiences with gay people, but consider the possibility that you haven't met a representative sample.

Gay "marriage" isn't like straight marriage. I'm not saying, in every case, it's not, but in most.

What if you're wrong about this? I know plenty of gay couples in stable, healthy, supportive relationships, some of whom are raising children (quite well).

Gays make rules for fooling around, extra partners, and all sorts of other arrangements that most straights reject for monogamy - deny that and you're an out-and-out liar.

Yes, some gay people do this. Plenty of straight people do it too. Tons of straight people cheat on their spouses. Should we deny marriage to them too?

Bush 41 certainly wasn't (that was why he was made Reagan's running mate), nor McCain (immigration), and a case can be made Dubya (No Child Left Behind, Big Government Conservatism), though an evangelical Christian, was hardly a pal of someone like Gary Bauer

If we apply the same standard to economic conservatives that you do to social conservatives, there have been no economic conservatives in positions of power in the Republican Party since the 1920s.

Outfits like Focus on the Family have just not been that high-profile in the Republican Party since Reagan was in.

Not sure if we're going by the Lizzie Warren rule, where one drop (in this case, of social Conservatism) pushes you over the line, but I'm the first to recognize that people may be socially Conservative on some issues, but not on others. I don't think Rev's examples make the case.

As another instance, many of Rand Paul's stands on social issues seem to be more informed by his strong adherence to states' rights, rather than any social convictions, as such.

Crack, don't criticize people for making assumptions and then proceed to make your own.

Such as?

You've clearly had some really bad experiences with gay people, but consider the possibility that you haven't met a representative sample.

Now you're assuming things. I've had really good and bad experiences with gays, as with all people, and if 20 years in the world's "Gay Mecca" isn't a representative sample, then you're going to have to tell me what is.

I'm not. Two men or women aren't like a man and woman. The physical differences, alone, should be obvious enough to tell you the claim is nonsense.

I know plenty of gay couples in stable, healthy, supportive relationships, some of whom are raising children (quite well).

So do I, but that still doesn't make them anything like an average married straight couple.

Yes, some gay people do (arrangements).

No, most gays do it.

Plenty of straight people do it too.

Not enough to call it "most" or threaten the institution.

Tons of straight people cheat on their spouses. Should we deny marriage to them too?

Sure, why not? And then give all their worldly goods to the betrayed spouse - all of it. Leave the adulterer broke and naked, since they thought so little of others and being nude was so important. Marriage is "until death do you part." They broke their vows. Why trust them not to do it again? Why reward them in any way? Don't like it? Don't have what it takes? Then don't do it.

Whatever you do, don't come busting my nuts because you can't grasp the seriousness of the enterprise/responsibility living in a civil society is - or that your spouse's life, dreams, and feelings are as important as your own.

He'd been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden's foreign policy speech, now known best for the "big stick" remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell, a week into his job as Romney's national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn't absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up.

If you think standing up to the irrational hatred of gay people from the Christianist base of the Republican Party is something worth doing, this doesn't speak well of Romney.

Tons of straight people cheat on their spouses. Should we deny marriage to them too?

Who is trying to deny gays anything? Why are you insisting that's what's happening, facts be damned? Think about that. What's driving that impulse to lie - even to yourself?

I said don't call it "marriage" because it should be based on gay life, not straight. That's intellectually consistent. There's no homophobia, or anything else negative, in that formulation. Insisting that's not so will win you nothing.

Andy R's link is to a known Romney-loather--the original "funny underwear" taunter.

Yeah, and Jews wear silly little hats, so what?

When are you people going to understand we've got a right to say these things? Or to "loathe" Romney, or Obama, or anyone else? What's wrong with you?

Who told/taught you that being an American is about silencing speech and dictating respect? Let me set you straight:

We, as a people, live by Freedom of Speech - and respect is EARNED.

People who wear funny underwear (with a mystical component at that) or silly hats, or men in dresses, or who grow long stupid beards, or whatever, get what they got coming. This is America. It is no wrong to dish it.

Grenell is a tiger. Did he really quit just because some idiots wanted to shut him up? Does not sound like him, and I'm sorry if he did quit in the face of pressure and criticism. At least he could have made them fire him.

I wonder if Grenell took this issue directly to Romney, or tried to. If he could not get the candidate's attention or support, I can see quitting. Otherwise I wonder what is up.

If the narrative is true, Romney has fucked up. As he has said, decency is a value too. As is loyalty. But there may be more, something more personal than political. And it's not a given that all of the bad conduct is coming from the right.

Your comment puts you on the same side as The Bigotry Brigade, who are attempting to silence speech, and suggesting there's something wrong with calling out cultists for acting like cultists - there's not. Romney wears magic underwear. His problem, no one else's.

I called out something that annoys me--just like you do.

But why? Are you American? Do you deny we have a right to tease Romney for his bizarre beliefs and habits? How about Tom Cruise? (Not that much difference between Mormonism and Scientology.) The Raelians? (Similarities there, too.)

Since their leader held his eyes a lot like Romney on the stump (something we're going to have to get used to over the next four years) would it have annoyed you if the Heaven's Gate cult had been teased out of existence and none of it's members had died, wearing track suits and Nikes in San Diego? How about The People's Temple 900 victims? Would you rather have seen them dead or their cult ridiculed and Jim Jones now in prison for fraud?

Your comment puts you on the same side as The Bigotry Brigade, who are attempting to silence speech, and suggesting there's something wrong with calling out cultists for acting like cultists - there's not.

Gee, I thought my comment put me on the same side as people calling out against Palin hatred and bigotry. I know that should be old history, but it's not.

Gee, I thought my comment put me on the same side as people calling out against Palin hatred and bigotry.

Nope. People had a right to do that, too. (The crime there was the mainstream media's role, both participating in her crucifixion and not doing their job to straighten out the stories that told anyone the truth about Palin.) Check out this post from Glenn Reynolds:

ON TWITTER, a lot of mockery over Obama’s fake girlfriend.

But let it be about Romney's Mormonism and all of a sudden he's screaming it's bigotry. That's hypocrisy, bullshit, and un-American - from the biggest blogger out there.

Crack "thinks" he knows everything about gays from the uber Leftist gays he met in San Fran, and some Conservative gays he met there too!

Were they equally represented in number and in the rates of promiscuity? Just wondering? Did his "research" also include lesbian couples or did he limit his investigations to male homosexuals and then generalize about all gays based on males? Would he think that if less promiscuous, lesbians might earn the right to marriage or at least some respect? /sarc

Has Crack done similar research into the prevalence of Extra Marital Sexual Relationships among married heterosexuals? I just did a quick search and gosh, I think we might have to rethink this whole marriage institution altogether. It certainly seems impractical if we banish adulterers from ever marrying.

see:

In their ground-breaking research, Kinsey and his colleagues found that approximately one third of men and one fifth of women had had extramarital sexual intercourse. ... In the three decades following the Kinsey reports, numerous sex surveys were conducted with convenience samples. In general, the results of these subsequent surveys were either congruent with the Kinsey group's finding or revealed a greater incidence of extramarital sex. In his review, Thompson concluded, "Population parameters for extramarital coitus seems to be at least 50% for married men, and the figure for married women is rapidly approaching the same level." Michael W. Wiederman, Ph.D "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey" The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 34, No. 2, 1997 pp. 167-174 http://www.mindingthemind.com/reprints/EMS.pdf

and:

Although both husbands and wives may have EMSPs, men are far more likely to report having sexual relationships outside of the marriage. Married men in rural Malawi, for example, are four times more likely to acknowledge having had an EMSP than married women in Malawi (Schatz 2005). Similarly large differences are reported elsewhere in Africa (Caraël et al. 1995). Part of this self-reported discrepancy may be attributable to under-reporting by women and, potentially, over-reporting by men (Nnko et al. 2004). However, prospective studies of HIV-negative couples in stable unions, which repeatedly test both members of the dyad, have found that men are twice as likely as women to first become infected with HIV and bring it into the union (Carpenter et al. 1999; Lurie et al. 2003). Presumably most of these husbands became infected from their EMSPs. Extra-marital sexual partnerships and male friendships in rural Malawi Shelley Clark http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol22/1/22-1.pdf

No. All the sources from the Romney campaign who were used in the latest NYT article required anonymity to say they asked Grenell not to quit. I don't put any stock in that. If you support the guy, why be afraid to say so? The only incident which referred to any person by name was that of Alex Wong, who told Grenell not to talk on an important internal foreign policy conference call that Grenell had himself set up.

The NYT article also says,

"“It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay,” one Republican adviser said. “They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right.” Like many interviewed, this adviser insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."